Pubdate: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 Source: National Post (Canada) Copyright: 1999 Southam Inc. Contact: http://www.nationalpost.com/ Forum: http://forums.canada.com/~canada Author: Alexander Rose ANTI-TOBACCO GESTAPO: PAST AND PRESENT Modern Campaign Echoes Rhetoric Of Nazi Health-fascists In the 1930s, the great British historian Arnold Toynbee once compared Gandhi to Hitler. Nowadays, that sort of comparison would be regarded as, if not foolish, then certainly, flippant. On the other hand -- and this was Toynbee's point -- were not both men vegetarian, teetotal, anti-smokers who cared deeply about animal welfare? It's true one was a megalomaniac mass-murderer, and the other a committed pacifist who refused to kill even a bothersome fly, but Hitler and Gandhi shared a dedication to a clean body and a clean mind. Such weird similarities can be found throughout history, as a marvellous new book by Robert Proctor entitled The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton University Press) shows. If you thought the current anti-smoking paranoia was a recent phenomenon, think again: The Nazis beat our "health-fascists" to the punch -- though even Hitler lacked the avarice of today's tobacco lawyers. Despite it being inaccurate to equate a reasonable regard for one's health with a grander Nazi desire to cleanse the volk of toxins, cancers and parasites such as Jews, Slavs and the disabled, today's more hysterical anti-smoking campaigners unwittingly replicate practices and rhetoric pioneered by the brilliant propagandists and authoritarians of the Third Reich. In Nazi Germany, for instance, abstinence from tobacco was a "national socialist duty" (Hitler gave a gold watch to associates who quit the habit, though this didn't stop them lighting up in the Berlin bunker once they heard the Fuhrer had committed suicide). Armed with such senior sanction -- loyally, Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler banned SS men from smoking, though not shooting, on duty, and Propaganda Minister Joseph Gobbels was obliged to hide his ciggie whenever he was filmed -- anti-tobacco activists succeeded in banning smoking from government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces. Tobacco taxes were raised, unsupervised cigarette vending machines were banned, and there were calls for a ban on smoking while driving. Thanks to the Ministry of Science and Education, and the Reich Health Office, posters were produced depicting smoking as the typically despicable habit of Jews, jazz musicians, Gypsies, Indians, homosexuals, blacks, communists, capitalists, cripples, intellectuals and harlots. Zealous lobbyists descended into the schools, terrifying children with tales of impotence and racial impurity. One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League. If some of these measures appear familiar today, then consider the rules laid down in 1941 regarding tobacco advertising. "Images that create the impression that smoking is a sign of masculinity are barred, as are images depicting men engaged in activities attractive to youthful males (athletes or pilots, for example)," and "may not be directed at sportsmen or automobile drivers," while "advocates of tobacco abstinence or temperance must not be mocked." Advertisements were banned from films, billboards, posters and "the text sections of journals and newspapers." Nevertheless, even the Nazis couldn't equal the recent ban on smoking on death row, meaning prisoners about to undergo massive electric shocks are forbidden from indulging in "one last drag" -- talk about cruel and unusual punishment. This great crusade, propagated through a remarkable network of lectures, re-education programs and congresses, was backed up by the medical and health establishment for the sake of "science." Or at least a certain type of junk science, one in which objective research and the scientific method was subordinated to, and bastardized for the sake of, a greater political program. Thus, it was commonly touted by scientists and racial hygienists that smoking caused "spontaneous abortions": a clearly demonstrable fallacy, but one requiring official promotion in order to ensure a high birth rate for Aryan women. It couldn't happen in Canada? Then consider how it is, as a new Fraser Institute book (Passive Smoke, by Gio Gori and John Luik) points out, anti-tobacco activists managed to secure bans on indoor smoking based on a 1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report stating that "passive smoking" caused thousands of deaths annually. What nobody tells you is that last year a U.S. Federal Court declared the EPA report "null and void, finding that the agency acted illegally and corrupted science to engage in a campaign of public disinformation." Nevertheless, much of British Columbia is -- ghastly phrase -- "smoke-free," and so soon may be Toronto when lighting up becomes verboten in bars and restaurants. (Montreal is a beacon of sanity in this regard.) Even so, smoking is rightly not permitted in many areas, and yes, it is bad for you, but does the end really justify what appear to be rather extreme and authoritarian means? - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake